The deadline is today, presumably close of business. It's 17h49 here in Brussels, so a reply in the next hour would be best. Can another committee member ok the sending of this asap (plus any fixes or improvements that come in the next hour)?
Note: There's a gap in my knowledge about what exactly they take "DRM" to mean, but I don't think the gap is fundamental.
Nitpicking allowed, spelling included.
--------------------8<------------
Dear recipient,
Regarding DRM, Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) is concerned that recent EU Directives have given far too much power to content owners and distributors, and that our representatives are not able to understand the implications of these Directives at current pace at which they're being produced.
Copyright law used to prohibit the public from certain acts without a license, non-prohibited acts were deemed "fair dealing". With DRM restricted software system, the public can be blocked from making use of fair dealing, and the law protects the content owners ability to do this. In this way, DRM allows technology and to trump law.
When only one company is permitted to make software that is authorised to display a work, DRM can also be used to secure legal monopoly status. A false, cartel-like competition may exist within the oligarchy of technology Mega Companies (few or none of which are European), but real competition - the sort that benefits consumers and new entrants to the market - will not exist.
The added coplexity of getting permission for what used to be fair dealing will also slow commerce and technical progress. Adding legal encumbrances to product development in the EU will push more jobs toward the low cost economies. Some DRM advocates say that legal protection of DRM is required to prevent widespread crime, but DRM systems can already be implemented without legal protection. Legal protection allows companies to shift the responsibility and cost of enforcement from themselves to the national authorities.
The market dangers of legal protection for DRM may not be visable today since DRM restricted content and software systems are not yet ubiquitous, but as books, communication, education, and communication transition to digital form, a complex entanglement of law and technology will be hard to undo.
In the recent batch of technology related Directives, IFSO has been repeatedly disappointed with the bias toward aiding the wealthy corporations at the expense of European consumers and enterprises. Even when our MEPs or Council members push for an amendment at our request, the final wording of the amendent is usually altered so that it looks similar but it's effect is null. Given that the vast majority of the wealthy companies recieving the aid are not European, and given that many MEPs have expressed sympathy and a lack of understanding of the real world implications of the directives, IFSO requests the legislative procedure for technical Directives be audited to find where the wealthy companies are gaining almost complete control, and where European consumers and enterprises of all sizes could have more input to produce balanced, productive Directives.
Yours very sincerely, Blah
The deadline has actually been extended to the 20th of September, so nitpick at your own pace. Deadline extension mentioned here: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/all_about/digital_righ...
"Ciaran O'Riordan" coriordan@compsoc.com writes:
The deadline is today, presumably close of business. It's 17h49 here in Brussels, so a reply in the next hour would be best. Can another committee member ok the sending of this asap (plus any fixes or improvements that come in the next hour)?
Note: There's a gap in my knowledge about what exactly they take "DRM" to mean, but I don't think the gap is fundamental.
Nitpicking allowed, spelling included.
--------------------8<------------
Dear recipient,
Regarding DRM, Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) is concerned that recent EU Directives have given far too much power to content owners and distributors, and that our representatives are not able to understand the implications of these Directives at current pace at which they're being produced.
Copyright law used to prohibit the public from certain acts without a license, non-prohibited acts were deemed "fair dealing". With DRM restricted software system, the public can be blocked from making use of fair dealing, and the law protects the content owners ability to do this. In this way, DRM allows technology and to trump law.
When only one company is permitted to make software that is authorised to display a work, DRM can also be used to secure legal monopoly status. A false, cartel-like competition may exist within the oligarchy of technology Mega Companies (few or none of which are European), but real competition - the sort that benefits consumers and new entrants to the market - will not exist.
The added coplexity of getting permission for what used to be fair dealing will also slow commerce and technical progress. Adding legal encumbrances to product development in the EU will push more jobs toward the low cost economies. Some DRM advocates say that legal protection of DRM is required to prevent widespread crime, but DRM systems can already be implemented without legal protection. Legal protection allows companies to shift the responsibility and cost of enforcement from themselves to the national authorities.
The market dangers of legal protection for DRM may not be visable today since DRM restricted content and software systems are not yet ubiquitous, but as books, communication, education, and communication transition to digital form, a complex entanglement of law and technology will be hard to undo.
In the recent batch of technology related Directives, IFSO has been repeatedly disappointed with the bias toward aiding the wealthy corporations at the expense of European consumers and enterprises. Even when our MEPs or Council members push for an amendment at our request, the final wording of the amendent is usually altered so that it looks similar but it's effect is null. Given that the vast majority of the wealthy companies recieving the aid are not European, and given that many MEPs have expressed sympathy and a lack of understanding of the real world implications of the directives, IFSO requests the legislative procedure for technical Directives be audited to find where the wealthy companies are gaining almost complete control, and where European consumers and enterprises of all sizes could have more input to produce balanced, productive Directives.
Yours very sincerely, Blah _______________________________________________ fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Wording is fine, more a general question:
Is what we are asking for sufficiently specific, or do we risk being dismissed as simply ranting against the status quo?
As a diligent student of "Yes Minister", it seems that vague wording is a gift to civil servants with their own agenda. In part this text seems to be critical of this very fact, but with only vague recommendations as to how to address it, recommendations that can quickly be dismissed.
It seems that we should be illustrating specific remedies, such as the appointment of independent experts in the area to assess the implications and effects of these laws, along with convincing evidence that whomever they are using right now is clearly inadequate (probably civil servants).
We need to emphasise that this is a radical change to copyright law with far-reaching implications, and that it should be given the impartial expert review that it deserves, and which it does not currently enjoy.
Ian.
On 15 Sep 2004, at 16:56, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
The deadline has actually been extended to the 20th of September, so nitpick at your own pace. Deadline extension mentioned here: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/all_about/ digital_rights_man/text_en.htm
"Ciaran O'Riordan" coriordan@compsoc.com writes:
The deadline is today, presumably close of business. It's 17h49 here in Brussels, so a reply in the next hour would be best. Can another committee member ok the sending of this asap (plus any fixes or improvements that come in the next hour)?
Note: There's a gap in my knowledge about what exactly they take "DRM" to mean, but I don't think the gap is fundamental.
Nitpicking allowed, spelling included.
--------------------8<------------
Dear recipient,
Regarding DRM, Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) is concerned that recent EU Directives have given far too much power to content owners and distributors, and that our representatives are not able to understand the implications of these Directives at current pace at which they're being produced.
Copyright law used to prohibit the public from certain acts without a license, non-prohibited acts were deemed "fair dealing". With DRM restricted software system, the public can be blocked from making use of fair dealing, and the law protects the content owners ability to do this. In this way, DRM allows technology and to trump law.
When only one company is permitted to make software that is authorised to display a work, DRM can also be used to secure legal monopoly status. A false, cartel-like competition may exist within the oligarchy of technology Mega Companies (few or none of which are European), but real competition - the sort that benefits consumers and new entrants to the market - will not exist.
The added coplexity of getting permission for what used to be fair dealing will also slow commerce and technical progress. Adding legal encumbrances to product development in the EU will push more jobs toward the low cost economies. Some DRM advocates say that legal protection of DRM is required to prevent widespread crime, but DRM systems can already be implemented without legal protection. Legal protection allows companies to shift the responsibility and cost of enforcement from themselves to the national authorities.
The market dangers of legal protection for DRM may not be visable today since DRM restricted content and software systems are not yet ubiquitous, but as books, communication, education, and communication transition to digital form, a complex entanglement of law and technology will be hard to undo.
In the recent batch of technology related Directives, IFSO has been repeatedly disappointed with the bias toward aiding the wealthy corporations at the expense of European consumers and enterprises. Even when our MEPs or Council members push for an amendment at our request, the final wording of the amendent is usually altered so that it looks similar but it's effect is null. Given that the vast majority of the wealthy companies recieving the aid are not European, and given that many MEPs have expressed sympathy and a lack of understanding of the real world implications of the directives, IFSO requests the legislative procedure for technical Directives be audited to find where the wealthy companies are gaining almost complete control, and where European consumers and enterprises of all sizes could have more input to produce balanced, productive Directives.
Yours very sincerely, Blah _______________________________________________ fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
-- Ciarán O'Riordan http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ Free Software in Ireland: http://ifso.ie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ciaran O'Riordan writes:
Nitpicking allowed, spelling included.
you got it ;)
--------------------8<------------
Dear recipient,
Regarding DRM, Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) is concerned that recent EU Directives have given far too much power to content owners and distributors, and that our representatives are not able to understand the implications of these Directives at current pace at which they're being
---------- replace: given the
produced.
Copyright law used to prohibit the public from certain acts without a license, non-prohibited acts were deemed "fair dealing". With DRM
--- replace: "a Digital Rights Management (DRM)"
restricted software system, the public can be blocked from making use of fair dealing, and the law protects the content owners ability to do this. In this way, DRM allows technology and to trump law.
^^^ delete
When only one company is permitted to make software that is authorised to display a work, DRM can also be used to secure legal monopoly status. A false, cartel-like competition may exist within the oligarchy of technology Mega Companies (few or none of which are European), but real competition -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ a bit "casual", possibly paranoid sounding imo ;) can't think of a good replacement though.
the sort that benefits consumers and new entrants to the market - will not exist.
The added coplexity of getting permission for what used to be fair dealing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ complexity of obtaining
will also slow commerce and technical progress. Adding legal encumbrances to product development in the EU will push more jobs toward the low cost economies. Some DRM advocates say that legal protection of DRM is required to prevent widespread crime, but DRM systems can already be implemented without legal protection. Legal protection allows companies to shift the responsibility and cost of enforcement from themselves to the national authorities.
The market dangers of legal protection for DRM may not be visable today
^^^^^^^ visible
since DRM restricted content and software systems are not yet ubiquitous, but as books, communication, education, and communication transition to digital form, a complex entanglement of law and technology will be hard to undo.
In the recent batch of technology related Directives, IFSO has been repeatedly disappointed with the bias toward aiding the wealthy corporations at the expense of European consumers and enterprises. Even when our MEPs or Council members push for an amendment at our request, the final wording of the amendent is usually altered so that it looks similar but it's effect is null. Given that the vast majority of the wealthy companies recieving the
^^^^^^^^^ receiving
aid are not European, and given that many MEPs have expressed sympathy and a lack of understanding of the real world implications of the directives, IFSO requests the legislative procedure for technical Directives be audited to find where the wealthy companies are gaining almost complete control, and where European consumers and enterprises of all sizes could have more input to produce balanced, productive Directives.
Hope that helps ;)
- --j.